On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 11:46:41AM -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 01:56:35PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > IOW: the current semaphore implementations really all need to die, and
> > be replaced by a single generic version to which it is actually
> > practical to add new functionality.
>
> I can see that goal, but I don't think introducing iosems is the right
> way to acheive it. Instead (and I'll start tackling this), how about
> factoring out the existing semaphore implementations to use a common
> lib/semaphore.c, much like lib/rwsem.c? The iosems can be used as a
> basis for the implementation, but we can avoid having to do a giant
> s/semaphore/iosem/g over the kernel tree.
Note that iosem is also a total misowner, it's not a counting semaphore
but a sleeping mutex with some special features.
Now if someone wants my two cent on how to resolve the two gazillion different
implementations mess:
- switch all current semaphore users that don't need counting semaphores
over to use a mutex_t type. For now it can map to struct semaphore.
- rip out all existing complicated struct semaphore implementations and
replace it with a portable C implementation. There's not a lot of users
anyway. Add a mutex_t implementation that allows sensible assembly hooks
for architectures instead of reimplementing all of it
- add more features to mutex_t where nessecary
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
